New Policy Discussion - **NO** Politics (& maybe Religion) in Sigs

Discussion in 'Communications' started by MrEmh, Aug 11, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. Theedage Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2001
    star 4
    What needs to be said? Taking away a person's ability to freely express part of who they are is really lame. I am not personally political or religious but I do advocate people's ability to freely express what and who they are and I'd think that politics is one of the biggies to how a person thinks, which in my book is most of what/who a person is. End of story.
  2. Imrahil Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 22, 2000
    star 4
    Honestly, I beleive this is a horrible decision. If someone considers a sig offense, then it should be reveiwed, but this seems like over kill to me. Is my sig honestly offensive to anyone?
  3. Theedage Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2001
    star 4
    Well now that I'm out of the convo, I said my piece, I'll now observer, maybe throw a witty comment in now and then.
  4. MrEmh Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 1999
    star 2
    Hold the phone!

    One thing to remember, said by the venerable Lord Bane (ahem ;) ) - And we are not stakeholders, we are standard wavers, or solicitors, or something related in that sense. We have no true stake in this place monetarily or physically unless you go through withdrawl. I'm sure some do. They owe us explanations, sure, but are not beholden to us in any way when it comes to making decisions.

    They decide what is best for the boards, good or bad, not us and never us.

    This is not a democracy; it you haven't learned that by force yet learn it now.
  5. stevo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 14, 2001
    star 4
    Imrahil-- I would change my sig if I were you . . . its not allowed anymore.
  6. Ben Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 27, 2000
    star 5
    at best they are a method of making a statement which no one can respond to.

    I'd link you to Comms, but you appear to be here already. Anytime someone has a big enough problem with a sig to do something about it, they do, be it posting here, or PMing a mod. If they don't care enough to do something about it, then there was no problem to begin with.
  7. Imrahil Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 22, 2000
    star 4
    I've had that sig for many months and have not recieved one complaint. How come all of a sudden it is deemed offensive and banable?
  8. Darth Tunes SfC Part III Commissioner

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 10
    how many more lame & stupid decisions are going to happen around here? would this mean i have to remove my 9/11 comment in my sig? there's an offical 9/11 thread in the Senate, so would that apply to this? ?[face_plain]
  9. DarthJurist Admin Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2000
    star 5
    Per the update:

    After some discussion, we unanimously decided to add a new rule to our terms of service:

  10. DUSHONI Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 2001
    star 4
    It bothers me that Internet Dramas post was deleted..he was trying to make a point that peopleare taking this DRAMA too seriously and that flaming is getting us nowhere.
  11. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    LB that is very true.

    But there are also very real limits to the Administrations power. The rules are only as good as their ability to be enforced.

    While it's true they sometimes have to make hard decision, a bad decision can be sucessfully challenged, and should be.
  12. MrEmh Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 1999
    star 2
    We weren't flaming, I_D was spamming and that is that. We were discussing with a civil, if a bit heated tone. It was not drama, but argument over a policy.

    Not every Communications thread is drama.
  13. Spike_Spiegal Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    star 5
    Again, I think this is a hasty and irrational decision.

    Two days after Vaderbait's banning this comes down? Without discussion with the AC or reg. members?

    This "problem" with sigs, seemed pretty nonexistant b4 this decision. Not only is it an encroachment on freedom but it's going to be incredibly difficult to enforce objectively if at all.
  14. Dan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 15, 1999
    star 6
    I'd have to agree that the new policy doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the signature isn't hurting anybody or isn't offensive to anybody, then why shouldn't it be allowed? Just because we happen to have a forum dealing with that subject matter does not mean that people shouldn't be able to voice their opinion in a harmless manner elsewhere. And has Josh or Scott seen this new policy? I'm not too sure if they would appreciate owning a message board that doesn't allow people to voice harmless opinions in their signature, but I could be wrong.

    I'd suggest review the sigs on a case by case basis. Or perhaps this would be a good time for the AC to step in and make, what, their third major decision since its revival? ;)

    All in all, this seems like a decision that was made quite hastily after one offensive signature was brought up.

    Oh, and hello, Erik! It seems that you and your good friend have something against a humorous sock. And please, using phrases like "shut up" do nothing to lighten the mood or atmosphere of the thread, especially when the post right before it was asking the participants to remain civil! I_D's post did absolutely nothing to rile people up or make the thread uncivil, but I dare say that your post just may have! I'd honestly hate to see something happen to you for telling me to shut up! [face_mischief]
  15. MrEmh Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 1999
    star 2
    "Not only is it an encrouchment on freedom"

    Again, this is not a democracy, nor do the US freedoms apply here. They are only valid in the US of A. This is the internet and a privately owned site.

    I'd honestly hate to see something happen to you for telling me to shut up! -Dan

    I just say rah bah bah to that, sir. ;) Complain if you want, but by rights of the board, such a mild comment would first require a warning. I simply would not abide nor agree to a banning brought on by trying to keep this thread on track.

    Now back to the discussion. ;)
  16. Spike_Spiegal Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    star 5
    Again, this is not a democracy, nor do the US freedoms apply here. They are only valid in the US of A. This is the internet and a privately owned site.


    True. But allowing people to express themselves freely on a message board should be a goal upheld by the people in charge. Now its the other way around. This is wrong.

    Preserving these things is in the site's best interest. I'd like to know what Josh or Scott have to say.
  17. DUSHONI Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 2001
    star 4
    such a mild comment would first require a warning.

    So you're saying that you told him to shut up because you knew you'd get away with it?

    *rolls eyes*
  18. MrEmh Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 1999
    star 2
    "I'd like to know what Josh or Scott have to say."

    We all want to know, but they rarely follow in the JC's affairs enough to even know what's going on. They do broad policy and leave the small stuff or the focused work to the Adminisration. It's a rarity that they even comment in here.
  19. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Two issues here, among others:

    Freedom of speech (discussed countless times relative to online freedom of speech, both here and elsewhere online).

    The sense of making a blanket ban on political speeches.

    Make sure you know what you're objecting to.
  20. Dan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 15, 1999
    star 6
    Ah, but Mr. Erik M.H., you are a former mod and would surely know the rules by now, would you not? I mean, you guys permanently banned PreacherBoy for saying an equally mild comment with one of your reasons being that he is a former moderator and should know the rules! By admitting that you should indeed receive a warning for the comment, you are admitting that you broke the rules, and since you are a former mod, be submitted to the same punishment that was given to Joel. :)
  21. Ramius Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2002
    star 3
    I have a quick question. Was Vaiderbait banned because of his sig alone, or had he done other stuff?
  22. MrEmh Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 1999
    star 2
    No, I was saying if someone found that offensive, it is so mild that it would only require a warning. I would never have banned someone for that or even warned them.

    PreacherBoy flamed others. He railed on others. He did not pussyfoot around anything nor was he even trying to be civil or keep things on track. He was a troll, in the end.

    If you want to discuss this further, use PMs. That is what they are there for. I won't reply anymore in this thread to your comments on things unrelated to the topic at hand.

    Back to issue.
  23. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    LB we both know what they're going to say to the idea that religious sigs should be banned.
  24. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
  25. MrEmh Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 14, 1999
    star 2
    True, true.

    "We're Christian, so everyone who shares this belief can say that. You all, the ones with differing opinions - just be quiet!"
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.